Sunday, January 29, 2017

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Giant Hypermarket has denied the claim that Israeli products were being sold in its outlets.

An anti-Israel NGO — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Malaysia — recently claimed that Giant has been selling pants from an Israeli brand.

A spokesperson from Giant Hypermarket Retail, when contacted, told FMT that the pants “were actually imported from China”.

“We regret any sensitivity regarding this issue,” the spokesperson said.

A sales assistant at a Giant outlet that FMT visited said the brand was no longer for sale and would be returned to the supplier today.

BDS Malaysia’s chairman, Mohd Nazari Ismail, had recently threatened Giant with a nationwide boycott if it didn’t remove the product from its outlets.

This was not the first time that BDS Malaysia has called for a boycott over Israel-linked products sold in Malaysia.

In September last year, it urged Sime Darby to stop selling Caterpillar construction machinery and Hyundai vehicles, with the claim that equipment from both brands had been used by Israel in the demolition of Palestinian homes at the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

***********************************************************

Who are the members of BDS? The Malays of course.

Malays today are childish and stupid. They want everything that does not belong to them. They want everything their ways. They have no respect for others. To them others are not worth living nor are they equal.

In Malaysia, the Malays are damn lazy with an ego that stinks sky high.

If BDS is right and almighty then they truly should not be living.

BDS should forbid all sick to be given medicine.

BDS should forbid all forms of robotic, computer, Ipad, smartphone and telecommunication.

BDS should forbid all forms of ammunition and weapons. I am sure IGP Khalid will welcome them with open arms and red carpet.

And now… the 10-sen library

The man behind the 10-sen ambulance, the 10-sen taxi and the 10-sen market for the poor has just hit on another 10-sen idea — a library for poor children in Bukit Jalil.

PETALING JAYA: Kuan Chee Heng made news when he started providing important services to the poor at just 10 sen.

His newest project after his 10-sen ambulance is a public library for children in Bukit Jalil.

But while his previous 10-sen projects were subsidising higher-cost products and services down to a dime, this is the first time he is actually charging money for something people can get free: a public library. Why?

The 54-year-old told FMT it’s because he believes people don’t really appreciate what they get for free.

“It’s only 10 sen. The money’s not for me. All goes back to the library. The amount to be collected will not even be enough to run the library,” he said.

But what if people say he’s just got carried away with his brand of 10 sen for everything?

“I am not doing this for fame,” he replied, adding that the project was named 10-sen library because it’s easy to remember.

“The 10-sen library project is a Malaysian project. I am just the point man to make sure it gets completed. Contribution in kind, cash and expertise came from the public,” he added.

Kuan added that the nearest public library to Bukit Jalil is also far, about 9km away.

“There’s the issue of money and safety. Would you allow your children as young as seven to travel to the library that far?”

With the 10-sen library on home turf, parents will be at ease knowing that their children are safe and closer to home, he said.

A vacant unit below a block of hardcore poor flats of PPR Pinggiran Bukit Jalil will be converted into the library. The renovation is on now.

City Hall has allowed Kuan to operate the library at the unit for free.

A half a thousand new books have also been secured for the project.

The library will be opened from morning until 10pm every day and it will cater to the poor children as young as seven to 17 years old.

Kuan said someone will be hired to take care of the library and to keep an eye on the children there.

“We want the library not just as a place to read and doing homework but also a centre where the children can seek help when they are in trouble,” said Kuan.

The 10-sen projects which he has already up and running are the 10-sen market, a 10-sen ambulance service and a 10-sen taxi service.

The 10-sen market takes place at the PPR Pinggiran Bukit Jalil every month. The poor can buy items at 10 sen each. The 10-sen taxi caters to the poor and needy people in Puchong, Seri Kembangan and the nearby areas.

Before the library, his latest project was the 10-sen ambulance. It’s operated in the rural area of Kedah, Puchong and Seri Kembangan.

The projects were funded by the public.

“Without the kind Malaysians and friends, I will not be able to this,” Kuan said.

I met Kuan couple years back and I am awe by such a humble man who has more to give than what he owns.

At that time I was curious whether Kuan would be like most so-called generous charitable people whom I have helped and supported in my life, had ill intention to enrich himself.

To the ones I have supported and helped for the past 40 years, none were genuine. Kuan was the exceptional one.

Unlike others, Kuan did not get sponsors to donate money to buy a building for himself. He did not make use of Homeless people to gain fortune, fame and title. He did not make use of any government agencies or private companies to enrich himself.

I stand SALUTE to humble Kuan and may all his projects for the poor bring happiness and hope for the Rakyat.

Today PAS is out for the blood of an ex Prime Minister wrongdoing but do not see the need to demand for an investigation into the criminal act of the Present Prime Minister.

PAS has given us more doubt as to why they need to protect the criminal act of Najib and Rosmah.
Today there is the internet and smart phone. One cannot hide or burn evidences like 20 years ago. I wonder whether it is true that there are evidences to show that Hadi, MB of Kelantan and Tok Guru's son did indeed receive money from 1MDB. When one cannot see the Elephant in front but can see the fly behind then one can only speculate the reason behind PAS demand.

If the past were to be investigated then do open the files on 4 Royalty who received RM300 million - RM1.8 billion from Najib and Rosmah. Like all Malaysians I want to know the reasons WHY my money was given to them. I got no job. I got no income. I got no car. I got no house. In fact I also believe my shit went to them.

We were born naked. We live under the same sky. We eat the same food. We drink the same water and we will turn to ash in the end. But we are treated differently because the placing of wealth and position were unjustly given to those who don't value such gift.

My heart bleeds in sorrow for my country when the authorities like PDRM, MACC, Bank Negara, Army and Judiciary play havoc into our lives.

Criminals are let loose while innocent people are make to pay for the crime.

One of the four men accused of assaulting lorry driver Nasrul Faiz Zulfahmi in Bukit Antarabangsa on Jan 14 had previously been acquitted of double murder.

Business owner Tengku Hazrul Shah Tengku Hamid, who together with three others yesterday claimed trial to charges of rioting in connection with the assault, was reportedly acquited of double murder in May 2007.

According to a report in The Star, Tengku Hazrul Shah was however re-arrested under the Emergency Ordinance, along with two out of the four who were alleged to have killed Ti Chee Khew, 29, and Loh Cheng Hye, 42, at the 6.4km point of the Genting Highlands–Kuala Lumpur road on June 19, 2003 at about 4am.

All four, including Tengku Hazrul's younger brother Tengku Khairul Nizam, were reportedly charged with the double murder on September 4, 2003.

In connection with the Nasrul's assault, Tengku Hazrul was charged along with business owner Vigneswaran Thirvadamany, Kuala Lumpur City Hall officer Mohd Neezam Jelani and driver Izakri Zakaria under Section 147 of the Penal Code for being present, joining, or being part of a riot which can cause injury.

They were accused of committing the offences at the Puncak Athenaeum condominium about 2.30pm on Jan 14.

A video clip of the incident, which went viral on social media, showed a man clad in a green T-shirt pinning Nasrul to the ground and repeatedly hitting him.

Following this, several other individuals arrived at the scene and repeatedly kicked the man who was on the ground.

The video recording of the assault was accompanied with a message that claimed the victim was assaulted for accidentally reversing into a Mercedes-Benz belonging to a 'Datuk'.

Inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar, however, said no 'Datuk' was involved in the case.

So refreshing to see this attempt at honesty from one so tainted by his central role in the banking scandals on the 90s,inlcuding Bank Bumi.Nevertheless, he is not wrong in what he has told the NST.It is true that the forex losses totalled more than USD 10 billion, but that must surely include the period 1994-1997 when one Anwar Ibrahim was in power,and Murad was his able henchman, or at least acolyte.

While this writer managed to get the facts out via that story in the link above in 1998, initial attempts to investigate the matter in 1996 were frustrated by Anwar Ibrahim and Bank Negara. Ably assisting Bank Negara in the cover-up and disinformation was the then editor of Business Times, one Hardev Kaur.

DATUK HARDEV KAUR

Datuk Hardev Kaur has since become some sort of media adviser to Prime Minsiter and Finance Minsiter Najib Razak .She is more than able to provide us more and better details as to how much was lost and exactly where that money went to.To paraphrase Bank Negara’s response to this writer’s queries in 1996,speak to Hardev who has the answers to your questions.

END

‘Actual losses were more than the ones reported by central bank’

27 January 2017 @ 10:56 AM

The following are excerpts from a question-and-answer session with former Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) assistant governor Datuk Abdul Murad Khalid.Murad, who resigned from BNM on Feb 1, 1999, was the manager of the central bank’s banking department (between April 1992 and March 1994) and was its bank regulation department manager (April 1988-March 1992).

During his tenure with BNM, Murad was involved in the investigation into Sime Bank. He took over BNM’s foreign exchange operations in late 1992 after the central bank incurred paper losses of more than RM9 billion, in that financial year. He was also made the central bank’s representative in the Oversight Committee of Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd and director of Danamodal Nasional Bhd.Question: What were the total losses incurred by BNM in foreign exchange (forex) during that period?Answer: The total losses were US$10 billion and not ringgit. Our losses were in foreign currencies. It means that our reserves in US dollar, pound and yen all went down the drain. We lost them just like that. This (amount) was accumulated losses over several years. Over the years, we discovered and closed the book in 1994, and recognised all the losses. The total losses depends (on the exchange rate). It would become RM44 billion if you convert it based on the present exchange rate. The exchange rate was between RM2.3 and RM2.5 for US$1 at that time.Q: What were the causes?A: There was no control. No internal control and nobody knew what was happening at that time. It was real money. As if we lost the money that we had in our pocket. For example, if you buy Tenaga Nasional Bhd shares at RM10 (per unit), a week later, you will have to pay. Tomorrow, (if) it falls to RM7, you will have to pay the difference if you sell it. They kept on rolling over the contract.Q: When was the bulk of the losses recorded?A: I think from 1991 to 1993. I’m not sure (if Datuk Seri) Anwar (Ibrahim) was involved. I cannot say that (the then prime minister) knew about it as I was not involved in the top management (meetings) between the minister and governor. I didn’t know what happened.Q: Who was responsible? Would you name them?A: No, I would not name them. The most important thing is there was no investigation at all. You lost US$10 billion, but there was no investigation. The police or the Anti-Corruption Agency (now the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) did not come. No one came to investigate.Q: In your knowledge, did anyone lodge a report with the ACA?A: It was highlighted in the newspapers. The stories were big and (nothing was done), even after the governors have changed several times.Q: Did the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) investigate the case?A: PAC only called (us) and asked us as a group from BNM. That’s all.Q: It was reported as losses in the BNM report… didn’t the then prime minister know about it?A: I’m sure the governor briefed them. Because the transactions were so big, you cannot unwind them in one day as it would take months to unwind. It involved mainly major currencies, such as the US dollar and Deutsche mark, as they didn’t have euro at that time, yen and pound.Q: At the bank level, was any action taken against the dealers?A: No. It was not their (the dealers’) decision. They only executed, but were not (involved) in the decision-making. I don’t know how it could happen as it was not the role of BNM to speculate.Q: Was it a pure business decision or were there other things that motivated them?A: I cannot say for sure. It’s possible (that they did it to make a lot of money). For example, in 10 transactions, if you can make profit from one, then that is possible (to make money).Q: Is it only on paper or real losses?A: It was real losses. Real money was involved. Our money from our reserves. As I told you earlier, if you have a bank account and you have lost some profits, you have to issue a cheque to pay. It’s the same. Very simple analogy there. It’s not the role of BNM to speculate. It should only intervene to smoothen the movement of the ringgit.Q: Normally, the government will charge those involved and retrieve the funds… in this case?A: No. And it’s up to the government as the case occurred more than 20 years ago. I will tell you what I know, but the most important thing is to ensure that the records are still there.Q: Is it the biggest loss in our history?A: Not only in Malaysian history, but in the world for forex losses. Even the Nick Leeson case (whose fraudulent, unauthorised speculative trading caused the collapse of Barings Bank) is small.US$10 billion is not a small amount. It was quoted as RM9 billion in the Bank Negara 1992 Annual Report. But, the total accumulated amount is much more than that.Q: Do you have proof to support your claim that the actual loss was US$10 billion?A: You can go to BNM and look at its accounts in that few years. The RM9 billion, or US$4 billion, was only recognised by BNM for 1992, while the US$10 billion was accumulated from several years. The actual losses were more than the ones reported in the BNM account.Q: Does it surprise you that the opposition did not raise the issue at that time?A: They raised it, but there was nothing much they could do. The power is in the government’s hand.Q: Should the authorities reopen the case?A: They should and I’m willing to cooperate. The records are already more than 20 years old and might have been eaten by termites. The dealings were done here (in Malaysia). There are two things, one is speculation and another is reserve management .Reserve management is where you move your assets or foreign currencies, such as the US dollar to Deutsche mark.It’s a real thing and (involves) real assets if you invest in Treasury bills or government bonds. That’s the role of BNM, but what it did (at that time) was speculation.This one (forex speculation), they could be rolled over or take position. They used to call it “contra” dealing in the stock market before, but it’s actually forward trading or betting.Q: How did it cover the losses?A: In the BNM account, it already had RM10 billion. It (might have) used that reserves first.Q: Is BNM the only central bank involved in “betting” in the world?A: Yes. It’s a big loss, but there is no investigation. Bigger than other cases and why there was a cover-up? The truth must prevail.

12 reads

“It’s a big loss, but there is no investigation. Bigger than other cases. Why was there a cover-up? The truth must prevail. It is not easy to conceal a dead elephant… the carcass is just too big for the hole. We are not talking about a chicken. “ Datuk Abdul Murad Khalid, Former Bank Negara Malaysia assistant governor

Commercial and civil litigation; employment and industrial law advice and dispute resolution; sports law; arbitration and mediation; protecting his mates and padding his pockets.

Professional Comments:

(Supplied by the Judge): Justice Kit Toogood QC has 38 years litigation experience. He is a former Deputy Chair of the New Zealand Sports Tribunal. Kit Toogood QC is a provider of strategic advice to major corporations and government departments on employment issues, including contract negotiation; restructuring; superannuation and benefits; termination of employment; and legislative compliance. He has accepted numerous appointments as arbitrator and mediator in sports-related, employment and other civil disputes, and is frequently called upon by commercial and not-for-profit organisations to provide advice on governance issues and compliance programmes.

(Law Society info): Beginning in the late 1980’s, Kit Toogood developed a propensity for legal faux pas’s which often put him on the wrong side of the law. He acted in a conflict of interest, representing a Waitomo Hotel employee grievance as well as the Tourist Hotel Corporation defence, but the Law Society gave him a pass on that one. He then sent a letter to MP Winston Peters which threatened the Member over what he might say in Parliament; an act that brought Toogood up on a contempt of Parliament charge before the Privileges Committee. Contempt of Parliament is the most serious offence in a democracy. Committee Member Bill Birch told the New Zealand Herald that Kit Toogood “was largely saved by his counsel” and “he escaped by the skin of his teeth”.

Christopher ‘Kit’ Toogood’s laziness then got him in trouble with clients, once resulting in Telecom dropping him as counsel after he missed important deadlines which invoked costs awards. In one employment mediation in the 1990’s, Mediator Caffrey restrained Toogood from physically assaulting barrister Tony Ellis.

(Kiwisfirst): Justice Kit Toogood fancies the finer things in life to a flaw. Toogood sought appointment almost entirely for the prestige of the position and in order to qualify for a judicial pension in a few years when he reaches mandatory court retirement age, then retire and command higher compensation as a (former High Court Judge) arbitrator. This is not a knock of Toogood, but rather symptomatic of how judicial appointments are made in New Zealand.

Since his appointment Justice Toogood has demonstrated a lackadaisical approach to his judicial duties, clearly finding the rudimentary tasks of judging – such as reading the case files and writing a coherent judgment in cases he is disinterested in – boring and unnecessary. This proclivity frequently spells disaster for those who have the misfortune of expecting justice before him. Too often Justice Kit Toogood “wings it” from the bench. He can take many months to issue rulings and this flaw has caused angst among many who appear before him. Paradoxically, he has been known to make oral rulings before hearing submissions or reading the relevant documents. Combine this with Toogood J’s propensity for “creative writing” and one can get the impression his judgment relates to an entirely different case on occasion. It has been said his novel interpretation of law and facts fits Kit Toogood’s physical resemblance to Humpty Dumpty.

Justice Toogood has shown himself to be a law onto himself. In a 2012 judicial review of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner CIV2012-404-646 [2012] NZHC 1481, Toogood J summarily dismissed the judicial review on application of the Commissioner despite a defence which disputed the pleaded facts, stating the Commissioner’s role of protecting judicial independence was paramount to a fair process, and this included refusing to conduct the mandatory examination of complaints of judicial misconduct required by section 15 of his governing statute (Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Panel Act 2004).

In CIV2005-404-1808 [2013] NZHC 301, Toogood J ordered that his judgment could not be subject to a recall application, directing the Registrar not to accept any application which might be attempted, thereby negating the long-established authority Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (NZSC).

In a February 2013 rape trial, Justice Toogood allowed the Crown to present a past rape conviction of the accused to the jury, calling it relevant “propensity evidence” – an action which brought praise from the Sensible Sentencing Trust and public concern from the New Zealand Law Society.

In December 2014, 13 months after the trial concluded, Toogood J issued his reasons for refusing application to disqualify himself on grounds he claimed in a public judgment four months earlier that the plaintiff had defamed him – Toogood asserting as his reasons that the public would agree with his finding he had been defamed ([2014] NZHC 3175).

In the 2014 equity case Zhang v Zhai ([2014] NZHC 1026) Toogood required the defendants first prove their defence to an application for specific performance of an 11-year old contract for purchase of an Auckland home where the plaintiff admitted he never tendered the purchase price per the 2003 contract. In his reserved ruling Toogood determined the plaintiff’s contract breach was not a breach because such a tender would have been “futile” despite no evidence or pleadings relying upon this excuse.

In July 2016, the New Zealand Herald and New Zealand Justice Forumexposed that Justice Toogood was presiding over an appeal by Affco against an Employment Court ruling that rights of seasonal meatworkers were preserved in the off-season, a decision that overturned a precedent-setting case from 1992 that Toogood was counsel for.

Toogood J has wasted no time and never hesitated in protecting “those who got him there” since his appointment to judge, no doubt setting the stage for “repeat business” upon hanging out his arbitration shingle after retirement. Sadly, Toogood J’s eagerness for his retirement is exceeded only by those who appear before him.

Background / Education:

Hails from Bankside Chambers in Auckland. Before that, Justice Toogood was a partner with Kensington Swan, from 1985 to 1990.Justice Toogood graduated from Victoria University of Wellington in 1972 and was admitted as a barrister and solicitor the following year. After 18 years as a litigation lawyer, he joined the independent bar in 1990 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1999.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

NEW DELHI – If there is one thing at which China’s leaders truly excel, it is the use of economic tools to advance their country’s geostrategic interests. Through its $1 trillion “one belt, one road” initiative, China is supporting infrastructure projects in strategically located developing countries, often by extending huge loans to their governments. As a result, countries are becoming ensnared in a debt trap that leaves them vulnerable to China’s influence.

Of course, extending loans for infrastructure projects is not inherently bad. But the projects that China is supporting are often intended not to support the local economy, but to facilitate Chinese access to natural resources, or to open the market for low-cost and shoddy Chinese goods. In many cases, China even sends its own construction workers, minimizing the number of local jobs that are created.

Several of the projects that have been completed are now bleeding money. For example, Sri Lanka’s Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport, which opened in 2013 near Hambantota, has been dubbed the world’s emptiest. Likewise, Hambantota’s Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port remains largely idle, as does the multibillion-dollar Gwadar port in Pakistan. For China, however, these projects are operating exactly as needed: Chinese attack submarines have twice docked at Sri Lankan ports, and two Chinese warships were recently pressed into service for Gwadar port security.

In a sense, it is even better for China that the projects don’t do well. After all, the heavier the debt burden on smaller countries, the greater China’s own leverage becomes. Already, China has used its clout to push Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand to block a united ASEAN stand against China’s aggressive pursuit of its territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Moreover, some countries, overwhelmed by their debts to China, are being forced to sell to it stakes in Chinese-financed projects or hand over their management to Chinese state-owned firms. In financially risky countries, China now demands majority ownership up front. For example, China clinched a deal with Nepal this month to build another largely Chinese-owned dam there, with its state-run China Three Gorges Corporation taking a 75% stake.

As if that were not enough, China is taking steps to ensure that countries will not be able to escape their debts. In exchange for rescheduling repayment, China is requiring countries to award it contracts for additional projects, thereby making their debt crises interminable. Last October, China canceled $90 million of Cambodia’s debt, only to secure major new contracts.

Some developing economies are regretting their decision to accept Chinese loans. Protests have erupted over widespread joblessness, purportedly caused by Chinese dumping of goods, which is killing off local manufacturing, and exacerbated by China’s import of workers for its own projects.

New governments in several countries, from Nigeria to Sri Lanka, have ordered investigations into alleged Chinese bribery of the previous leadership. Last month, China’s acting ambassador to Pakistan, Zhao Lijian, was involved in a Twitter spat with Pakistani journalists over accusations of project-related corruption and the use of Chinese convicts as laborers in Pakistan (not a new practice for China). Zhao described the accusations as “nonsense.”

In retrospect, China’s designs might seem obvious. But the decision by many developing countries to accept Chinese loans was, in many ways, understandable. Neglected by institutional investors, they had major unmet infrastructure needs. So when China showed up, promising benevolent investment and easy credit, they were all in. It became clear only later that China’s real objectives were commercial penetration and strategic leverage; by then, it was too late, and countries were trapped in a vicious cycle.

Sri Lanka is Exhibit A. Though small, the country is strategically located between China’s eastern ports and the Mediterranean. Chinese President Xi Jinping has called it vital to the completion of the maritime Silk Road.

China began investing heavily in Sri Lanka during the quasi-autocratic nine-year rule of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, and China shielded Rajapaksa at the United Nations from allegations of war crimes. China quickly became Sri Lanka’s leading investor and lender, and its second-largest trading partner, giving it substantial diplomatic leverage.

It was smooth sailing for China, until Rajapaksa was unexpectedly defeated in the early 2015 election by Maithripala Sirisena, who had campaigned on the promise to extricate Sri Lanka from the Chinese debt trap. True to his word, he suspended work on major Chinese projects.

But it was too late: Sri Lanka’s government was already on the brink of default. So, as a Chinese state mouthpiece crowed, Sri Lanka had no choice but “to turn around and embrace China again.” Sirisena, in need of more time to repay old loans, as well as fresh credit, acquiesced to a series of Chinese demands, restarting suspended initiatives, like the $1.4 billion Colombo Port City, and awarding China new projects.

Sirisena also recently agreed to sell an 80% stake in the Hambantota port to China for about $1.1 billion. According to China’s ambassador to Sri Lanka, Yi Xianliang, the sale of stakes in other projects is also under discussion, in order to help Sri Lanka “solve its finance problems.” Now, Rajapaksa is accusing Sirisena of granting China undue concessions.

By integrating its foreign, economic, and security policies, China is advancing its goal of fashioning a hegemonic sphere of trade, communication, transportation, and security links. If states are saddled with onerous levels of debt as a result, their financial woes only aid China’s neocolonial designs. Countries that are not yet ensnared in China’s debt trap should take note – and take whatever steps they can to avoid it.